The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

God's Not Dead

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,096 times Debate No: 66840
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




God is not dead, he is provably extant.


God- the all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect being who is the prime mover of all things


If you can prove he is alive you win. I will refute what you say.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, okay. I shall start with a cosmological argument for God being real.

We observe in this universe two categories of things- objects which are dependent on outside causes, and objects which exist by their own natures. Now we know dependent things must depend upon other things, which are dependent in turn on other dependent things. As we go back through a chain of dependencies, we must look for a necessary thing that caused the first dependency to exist. If that thing does not bear within itself sufficient explanation for its existence, we must go back further. But we cannot go back forever in this fashion, because infinite numbers of things would lead to metaphysical paradoxes (such as Xeno's paradox). We must arrive at something necessary by its own nature. This thing should rightly be given the title of prime mover of the universe.

Secondly, I present a moral argument from the existence of objective moral values and duties. If there is no God, moral values and duties are merely spin-offs of the bio-evolutionary process and socio-cultural programming and that is all. And yet, we behave in a way that considers certain acts as evil and certain acts as just. We think people can behave more morally. All our moral senses suggest morality is objective. But if morals are objective and not relativistic, then there must be a moral standard which has formed these. This is represented in God.

Thirdly, I present a teleological argument from the fine-tuned nature of the universe. In this universe, there exist and have many arbitrary constants and quantities, for example, the low entropy condition of the early universe[1]. It's not just the quantities and constants either, but their ratios to one another that are tuned. These could all have been different. They are total flukes of nature (from a naturalistic viewpoint). And yet with just one them being changed by a hairs-breadth, intelligent, self-reflective life-forms who ask questions of the universe like ourselves could not exist. Just like a building plan proves a designer of it exists, so a planned universe for intelligence proves a powerful and intelligent thing exists that created it.


[1] Roger Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," in Quantum Gravity 2 (ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. W. Sciama; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 249.


Rebuttal I: "As we go back through a chain of dependencies, we must look for a necessary thing that caused the first dependency to exist." Your argument of proof revolves around what "we" as humans think we know. As humans, we have made countless advances in the last 1,000 years and will continue to do so for the rest of our existence. How do we truly know that a "thing" caused this universe to Exist. I can refute this thinking by asking you two questions: "What was before God?" & "What was before the Big Bang?". You can not PROVE either answers. It lacks logic to assume it was "God" just because we do not yet truly know everything about the universe. I do not see how you PROVED God with this aspect of your argument.

Rebuttal II: Just because we have "Morals" doesn't mean God exist. Everything that is Immoral hinders humanity in one way or another.. I argue that "Morals" are displayed in humanity to increase our odds of survival as a species. It would not make any sense for a species with our intelligence to knowingly commit actions that degrade the chance for its own survival as an overall species. Example: It is Immoral to kill a new born. That doesn't PROVE God, Every K-Selective species looks after its young to boost its rate of survival. I do not see how you PROVED God with this aspect of your argument.

Rebuttal III: "Just like a building plan proves a designer of it exists, so a planned universe for intelligence proves a powerful and intelligent thing exists that created it." This is not true. The universe and a drawing on a human created piece of paper are two entirely different things that do not PROVE the existence of one another. That line of thinking is within the scope of our human reasoning and comprehension. Any species comprehension of the universe is dependent on its level of intelligence. There are things we do not understand because we simply do not have the mental capacity. Your Blue Print example is based off your human understanding of things. I do not see how you PROVED God with this aspect of your argument.

As of this point, you are yet to PROVE the existence of God. To say "God is not Dead" you need to first prove God exist. I can not prove he exist or doesn't exist, but that is not my responsibility in this debate. I respect your thoughts, but fail to see how they "Prove" God.

Eagerly awaiting the final round of this debate.
- Have a good day.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has objected to the cosmological argument by saying it is unclear what the grounds of God existing are, in a way. Well this is an age old dispute, but it's generally bleived that God is self-caused and therefore is immune to asking what is before him. he is simply necessary, like abstract objects are necessary. As to why I assume God is the cause of the universe, he is the only abstract object wiht causal powers, numbers and other mathematical objects are unable to cause things, therefore we posit an unembodied mind as the metaphysical construct which neccesarily created all contingent reality.

In my second argument I wasn't saying having morals alone proves God. In none of my arguments am I attempting to prove God, but show his existence is much more plausible than it would be without certain facts. It is a fact that we abhor certain actions and find certain actions to be just. On a godless world view we should simply view certain acts like rape as being nothing more than a flouting of herd morality, kind of the moral equivalent of fashion on lady Gaga. But that isn't how we view morality. We all think moral progress has happened since slave times and we all condemn certain types of actions and thoughts. Look into your hearts and you will see you have an objective sense of morality not explained by what is arbitrarily disadvantageous on an evolutionary scale or arbitrarily socially condemned, even if you do not believe in God or gods, you must admit you have a sense of objective morals existing. We can no more doubt our moral sense of that than we can our physical senses. Objective morality is a properly basic belief and absent a sound defeater of that belief we are justified in holding objective moral values really exist and therefore that a morally perfect God exists.

In rebuttal three, my opponent basically assumes that we as humans cannot infer anything about the tuned nature of the universe because we are dependent on a certain level of intelligence that is apparently inadequate to sense whether my telegological argument from fine-tuning is correct. He is not very specific about this, but I have given links to people who have shown the universe is fine-tuned to act as an environment for intelligent life. So long as that is true, it seems we can infer at least some of the evidence that confirms a God designed the universe, and therefore, we are justified in inferring a super-intelligent mind engineered the universe as at least more probable than not, and therefore, we should believe an intelligent God exists.


Pro has used Theory's that can not be proven in every round of this debate. Furthermore, he has not only failed to prove God but to also prove "God's not Dead".

"He is simply necessary, like abstract objects are necessary" That is not proof, that is an assumption.

I'm not quiet sure why Lady Gaga is in your argument, but it's probably because her song Judas offended you and her fan base has a high LBGT percentage.. LOL

"..the universe is fine-tuned to act as an enviornment for intelligent life. So long as this is true, it seems we can infer at lease some of the evidence that confirms a God designed the universe, and therefore, we are justified in inferring a super-intelligent mind engineered the universe at least more probable than not, and therefor, we should believe an intelligent God exists."
- LOL WHAT!? By far one of the most rediculious statements my mind has ever had to process. We should believe in an intelligent God based off of 3 assumptions in a row. I've never seen anything like that statement.

Pro has failed to prove anything. Pro spent too much time attempting to prove God and could never move on to the true topic of the debate "God's not dead".

There is no way an unbiased voter could vote in favor of Pro. Pro has failed to prove his point on every level.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by palmkrawler 3 years ago
I agree 125% with dhardage.
Posted by dhardage 3 years ago
I cannot vote on the resolution because I don't believe God ever existed so he was never 'alive' to being with so he cannot be, by definition, dead.
Posted by Dzenis 3 years ago
We as humans can not prove or disprove anything divine, that's why it is such a "big" debate because it's this never ending belief that it's something that can be agreed upon so thus must be the logical answer... When I see people debating over if gods dead, alive, if he's real, if he isn't, no offense but those types of are meaningless, it just provokes deep and "philosophical" thinking that can never be, and I mean ever be proven because it is outside the realm of our reality, we could be in a virtual reality right now and we are our own god controlling everything and anything that has to do with our reality, that we created when we entered the virtual reality... ANYTHING is possible, god could be a flying spaghetti monster, he could be dead but still be alive as a zombie, literally anything could be debated, but nothing can be proved. We could die and wake up at the same moment.......
Posted by palmkrawler 3 years ago
Your first paragraph fails on two levels. The first
level indicates that since we do not have an answer
for where our universe came from that means the answer must
automatically default to God. Incorrect. Just because
we don't have the answer today does not mean we won't
have the answer tomorrow. The answer might even exist
outside of our known universe in another universe that
does not conform to our physics or our laws. But,
whatever the answer, it does not mean that we should
stop seeking that knowledge. Second, you do realize that
with all of your arguments, you could replace the word
"God" with ""invisible pencil creature from planet Yanni".
And you would be proving the "invisible pencil
creature from planet Yanni"" is alive.

The second paragraph. Humans learned early
on that in order for one person to succeed, all persons
within the social group needed to succeed. Whether
is was hunting or building/finding shelter, humans
relied on one another for their existence. Once humans
had the need to rely on one another, ethics and morality
were essential for the unit to thrive and survive.
This is not unique to humans. Animals also hunt together
and exist together. If they kill each other, how can
they have the benefit of the group? That in itself is
a morality. I know religious folk like to hijack morality
and claim it to be it's own construct when there
are many examples on the planet where religion plays
not part in morality or ethics. The moral standard
is not God. The moral standard is survival and the
continuation of the species.

Your third circular argument is nearly identical to
the first circular argument. If we don't fully
understand something and cannot come up with a complete
answer than the answer must automatically be God or
God created it. We are VERY small creatures with VERY
limited intellect on a VERY small insignificant planet
which is part of this huge universe. To even think we
know even 1/1000000 of wha
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay.. Pro had Lady Gaga in his argument, I have no idea why. Con actually had a solid rebuttal and arguments while Pro made assumptions and opinions.